Boundary Layer Verification ECMWF training course April 2014 Maike Ahlgrimm
Aim of this lecture To give an overview over strategies for boundary layer evaluation By the end of this session you should be able to: Identify data sources and products suitable for BL verification Recognize the strengths and limitations of the verification strategies discussed Choose a suitable verification method to investigate model errors in boundary layer height, transport and cloudiness. smog over NYC
Overview General strategy for process-oriented model evaluation What does the BL parameterization do? Broad categories of BL parameterizations Which aspects of the BL can we evaluate? What does each aspect tell us about the BL? What observations are available What are the observations advantages and limitations? Examples Clear convective BL Cloud topped convective BL Stable BL
Basic strategy for model evaluation and improvement: Observations Identify discrepancy Model Output Figure out source of model error Improve parameterization When and where does error occur? Which parameterization(s) is/are involved?
What does the BL parameterization do? Attempts to integrate effects of small scale turbulent motion on prognostic variables at grid resolution. Turbulence transports temperature, moisture and momentum (+tracers). Stull 1988 Ultimate goal: good model forecast and realistic BL
Broad categories of BL parameterizations Unified BL schemes Attempt to integrate BL (and shallow cloud) effects in one scheme to allow seamless transition Often statistical schemes (i.e. making explicit assumptions about PDFs of modelled variables) using moist-conserved variables Limitation: May not work well for mixed-phase or ice Examples: DualM (Neggers et al. 2009), CLUBB (Larson et al. 2012) Specialized BL scheme One parameterization for each discrete BL type Simplifies parameterization for each type, parameterization for each type ideally suited Limitation: must identify BL type reliably, is noisy (lots of if statements) Example: Met-Office (Lock et al. 2000) Most models use a mixture of these, with some switching involved
Which aspect of the BL can we evaluate? 2m temp/humidity we live here! proxy for M-L T/q 10m winds roughness length, surface type depth of BL good bulk measure of transport structure of BL (profiles of temp, moisture, velocity) BL type turbulent transport within BL (statistics/pdfs of air motion, moisture, temperature) details of parameterized processes boundaries (entrainment, surface fluxes, clouds etc.) forcing
Available observations SYNOP (2m temp/humidity, 10m winds) Radiosondes (profiles of temp/humidity) Lidar observations from ground (e.g. ceilometer, Raman) or space (CALIPSO) BLH, vertical motion in BL, hires humidity Radar observations from ground (e.g. wind profiler, cloud radar) and space (CloudSat) BLH, vertical motion in subcloud and cloud layer Other satellite products: BLH from GPS, BLH from MODIS Chandra et al. 2010
Example: Boundary Layer Height normalized BL height Definitions of BL: affected by surface, responds to surface forcing on timescales of ~1 hour (Stull) layer where flow is turbulent layer where temperature and moisture are well-mixed (convective BL) Composite of typical potential temperature profile of inversion-topped convective boundary layer Motivation: depth and mixed-layer mean T/q describe BL state pretty well Many sources of observations: radiosonde, lidar, radar Figure: Martin Köhler relative potential temperature
Boundary Layer Height from Radiosondes Three methods: Heffter (1980) (1) check profile for gradient (conv. only) Liu and Liang Method (2010) (1+) combination theta gradient and wind profile (all BL types) Richardson number method (2) turbulent/laminar transition of flow (all BL types) Must apply same method to observations and model data for equitable comparison! For a good overview, see Seidel et al. 2010
Heffter method to determine PBL height Potential temperature gradient Potential temperature gradient exceeds 0.005 K/m Pot. temperature change across inversion layer exceeds 2K Potential temperature Note: Works on convective BL only May detect more than one layer Detection is subject to smoothing applied to data Sivaraman et al., 2012, ASR STM poster presentation
Liu and Liang method First, determine which type of BL is present, based on Θ difference between two near-surface levels Liu and Liang, 2010
Liu and Liang method: convective BL For convective and neutral cases: Lift parcel adiabatically from surface to neutral buoyancy (i.e. same environmental Θ as parcel), and Θ gradient exceeds minimum value (similar in concept to Heffter). Parameters δ s, δ u and critical Θ gradient are empirical numbers, differing for ocean and land. Liu and Liang, 2010
Liu and Liang method: stable BL Stable case: Search for a minimum in θ gradient (top of bulk stable layer). If wind profile indicates presence of a low-level jet, assign level of jet nose as PBL height if it is below the bulk layer top. Advantage: Method can be applied to all profiles, not just convective cases. Liu and Liang, 2010
BLH definition based on turbulent vs. laminar flow shear production pressure correlation buoyancy production/ consumption turbulent transport dissipation
Richardson number-based approach Richardson number defined as: Ri= buoyancy production/consumption shear production (usually negative) flow is turbulent if Ri is negative flow is laminar if Ri above critical value calculate Ri for model/radiosonde profile and define BL height as level where Ri exceeds critical number Problem: defined only in turbulent air! Flux Richardson number
Gradient Richardson number Alternative: relate turbulent fluxes to vertical gradients (Ktheory) flux Richardson number gradient Richardson number Remaining problem: We don t have local vertical gradients in model
Bulk Richardson number (Vogelezang and Holtslag 1996) Solution: use discrete (bulk) gradients: Surface winds assumed to be zero Ignore surface friction effects, much smaller than shear Limitations: Values for critical Ri based on lab experiment, but we re using bulk approximation (smoothing gradients), so critical Ri will be different from lab Subject to smoothing/resolution of profile Some versions give excess energy to buoyant parcel based on sensible heat flux not reliable field, and often not available from observations This approach is used in the IFS for the diagnostic BLH in IFS.
ERA-I vs. Radiosonde (Seidel et al. 2012) Dots: Radiosonde BLH Background: Model BLH
Example: dry convective boundary layer NW Africa 2K excess 1K excess Figures: Martin Köhler Theta [K] profiles shifted
Limitations of sonde measurements Sonde measurements are limited to populated areas Depend on someone to launch them (cost) Model grid box averages are compared to point measurements (representativity error) Took many years to compile this map Neiburger et al. 1961
Cohn and Angevine, 2000 Boundary layer height from lidar Aerosols originating at surface are mixed throughout BL Lidar can identify gradient in aerosol concentration at the top of the BL but may pick up residual layer (ground/satellite) For cloudy boundary layer, lidar will pick out top of cloud layer (satellite) or cloud base (ground) Lidar backscatter (ground based) top of the convective BL elevated aerosol layer attenuated signal due to clouds
Additional information from lidar Doppler Lidar Lidar backscatter Vertical velocity In addition to backscatter, get vertical velocity from doppler lidar. Helps define BLH, but also provides information on turbulent motion
South East Pacific CALIPSO tracks Arabic peninsula - daytime
BLH from lidar how-to Easiest: use level 2 product (GLAS/CALIPSO) Algorithm searches from the ground up for significant drop in backscatter signal Align model observations in time and space with satellite track and compare directly, or compare statistics molecular backscatter backscatter from BL aerosol surface return Figure: GLAS ATBD
Lidar-derived BLH from GLAS Only 50 days of data yield a much more comprehensive picture than Neiburger s map. Ahlgrimm & Randall, 2006
GLAS - ECMWF BLH comparison GLAS ECMWF 200-500m shallow in model, patterns good Palm et al. 2005
Diurnal cycle from CALIPSO
BLH from lidar - Limitations Definition of BL top is tied to aerosol concentration - will pick residual layer Does not work well for cloudy conditions (excluding BL clouds), or when elevated aerosol layers are present Overpasses only twice daily, same local time (satellite) Difficult to monitor given location (satellite) Coverage (ground-based)
2m temperature and humidity, 10m winds This is where we live! We are BL creatures, and live (mostly) on land Plenty of SYNOP Point measurements Availability limited to populated areas An error in 2m temp/humidity or 10m winds can have many reasons difficult to determine which one is at the root of the problem http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/16/66/166689_99dc7723.jpg
10m wind biases compared to synop observations OLD NEW Irina Sandu
Example: 10m winds OLD NEW Bias+st dev U10m Vegetation type No snow Vegetation type Bias+st dev U10m Vegetation type No snow Vegetation type Irina Sandu
Example: Evaluating turbulent transport (DualM) Dual Mass Flux parameterization - example of statistical scheme mixing K-diffusion and mass flux approach Updraft and environmental properties are described by PDFs, based on LES Need to evaluate PDFs! Neggers et al. 2009
Bomex: trade cumulus regime Stevens et al. 2001 Model fluxes via LES, constrain LES results with observations
Example: vertical motion from radar Observations from mm-wavelength cloud radar at ARM SGP, using insects as scatterers. reflectivity doppler velocity reflectivity Chandra et al. 2010 local time red dots: ceilometer cloud base
Chandra et al. 2010 Turbulent characteristics: vertical motion Variance and skewness statistics in the convective BL (cloud free) from four summer seasons at ARM SGP
lot: Franz Berger (DWD) Turbulent characteristics: humidity Raman lidar provides high resolution (in time and space) water vapor observations
Example: lidar and discrete BL types Use higher order moments! Skewness of vertical velocity distribution from doppler lidar distinguishes surface-driven vs. cloud-top driven turbulence Hogan et al. 2009
Doppler lidar: BL types BL type occurrence at Chilbolton, based on Met Office BL types Harvey et al. 2013
Example: cloud topped BL VOCALS campaign, SE Pacific Bretherton et al. 2010 Very strong inversion signal, Easy to pick out from profile Very strong backscatter signal from lidar Easy to detect cloud top/base Bretherton et al. 2004, BAMS
Example: cloud topped BL Difficulty: how to define BL top?
Observations relating to BL forcing Surface radiation (optical properties of cloud, top-driven strength of turbulence) Cloud liquid and drizzle retrievals from radar (cloud properties, autoconversion/accretion and evaporation processes) Cloud mask from radar/lidar (cloud occurrence, triggering of BL types) Surface fluxes (BL types) Entrainment
Ahlgrimm and Forbes, 2012 Examples from the IFS: Fair weather cumulus Compensating errors in this regime: BL scheme not triggering cloud often enough Cloud amount when present ok Cloud liquid overestimated
Examples from the IFS: Marine BL cloud Joint PDF of cloud fraction Model has few cloud fractions between 60-90%: BL type stratocumulus vs. cloud generated by shallow convection scheme - triggering Broken BL clouds have opposite SW bias from overcast BL clouds: Cloud properties incorrect (in this case, main cause: LWP) Ahlgrimm and Forbes, 2014
Examples from the IFS: Marine BL cloud Luke and Kollias, 2013 Precipiation occurrence overestimated at cloud base and the surface: Alterations to autoconversion/accretion and evaporation parameterizations
Summary & Considerations What parameter do you want to verify? What observations are most suitable? Define parameter in model and observations in as equitable and objective a manner as possible. Compare! Are your results representative? How do model errors relate to parameterization?
References (in no particular order) Neiburger et al.,1961: The Inversion Over the Eastern North Pacific Ocean Bretherton et al., 2004: The EPIC Stratocumulus Study, BAMS Seidel et al. 2010: Estimating climatological planetary boundary layer heights from radiosonde observations: Comparison of methods and uncertainty analysis, J. Geophys. Res. Seidel et al. 2012: Climatology of the planetary boundary layer over the continental United States and Europe, J. Geophys. Res. Stevens et al., 2001: Simulations of trade wind cumuli under a strong inversion, J. Atmos. Sci. Stevens et al., 2003: Dynamics and Chemistry of Marine Stratocumulus - DYCOMS II, BAMS Chandra, A., P. Kollias, S. Giangrande, and S. Klein: Long-term Observations of the Convective Boundary Layer Using Insect Radar Returns at the SGP ARM Climate Research Facility, J. Climate, 23, 5699 5714. Hannay et al., 2009: Evaluation of forecasted southeast Pacific stratocumulus in the NCAR, GFDL, and ECMWF models. J. Climate
References (cont.) Hogan et al, 2009: Vertical velocity variance and skewness in clear and cloudtopped boundary layers as revealed by Doppler lidar, QJRMS, 135, 635 643. Köhler et al. 2011: Unified treatment of dry convective and stratocumulustopped boundary layers in the ECMWF model, QJRMS,137, 43 57. Ahlgrimm & Randall, 2006: Diagnosing monthly mean boundary layer properties from reanalysis data using a bulk boundary layer model. JAS Neggers, 2009: A dual mass flux framework for boundary layer convection. Part II: Clouds. JAS Vogelezang and Holtslag, 1996: Evaluation and model impacts of alternative boundary-layer height formulations, Boundary-Layer Meteorology Larson, Vincent E., David P. Schanen, Minghuai Wang, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Steven Ghan, 2012: PDF Parameterization of Boundary Layer Clouds in Models with Horizontal Grid Spacings from 2 to 16 Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., George, R. C., Leon, D., Allen, G., and Zheng, X.: Southeast Pacific stratocumulus clouds, precipitation and boundary layer structure sampled along 20 S during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10639-10654, doi:10.5194/acp-10-10639-2010, 2010.
References (cont.) Cohn, Stephen A., Wayne M. Angevine, 2000: Boundary Layer Height and Entrainment Zone Thickness Measured by Lidars and Wind-Profiling Radars. J. Appl. Meteor., 39, 1233 1247. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-10-05059.1 Harvey, N. J., Hogan, R. J. and Dacre, H. F. (2013), A method to diagnose boundary-layer type using Doppler lidar. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc., 139: 1681 1693. doi: 10.1002/qj.2068 Luke, Edward P., Pavlos Kollias, 2013: Separating Cloud and Drizzle Radar Moments during Precipitation Onset Using Doppler Spectra. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 30, 1656 1671. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/jtech-d- 11-00195.1 Ahlgrimm, Maike, Richard Forbes, 2014: Improving the Representation of Low Clouds and Drizzle in the ECMWF Model Based on ARM Observations from the Azores. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 668 685. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-13-00153.1 Ahlgrimm, Maike, Richard Forbes, 2012: The Impact of Low Clouds on Surface Shortwave Radiation in the ECMWF Model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 3783 3794. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-11-00316.1